![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thatcrazycajunFunny this should come around not only at the start of National Fire Prevention Week, but also on the 136th anniversary of the Great Chicago Fire: Longtime readers of this journal will know I come from a family of firefighters; both my father and younger brother have held the rank of Captain in the Lafayette Fire Dept., back in my Louisiana hometown. Little bro also started out as a volunteer before turning pro, and Lafayette has a lot of fairly small towns around it that depend on volunteer firefighters, being too small to afford paid forces.
This op-ed column appearing in the local paper here today (not posted to its website, alas) alleges that the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) is pushing federal legislation through Congress that would make it even more difficult for volunteer departments to find the one or two career smoke-eaters they need to run them and train the volunteers. A quick Google scan of firefighter message boards confirms what the column states, that the IAFF's constitution specifically prohibits paid firefighters from working on vollie fire departments, even in their off-duty hours.
Some caveats: 1) My dad and brother are both members of IAFF, and the union pays my dad a pension; 2) the union has been one of the longest-serving and staunchest supporters of my favorite charity, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, and its annual fund-raising efforts around Labor Day; 3) being a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I have a tough time seeing any labor union as "the bad guy" in a political debate; and 4) this columnist happens to work for the Heritage Foundation, a well-known right-wing think tank with a bias against unions.
But I also come from a state with "right-to-work" laws in force, and am all too aware of some of the excesses to which some unions have resorted in the name of protecting their and their members' interests. So this troubles me a bit. I will have to think about it some more before coming down on one side or the other...but my initial inclination is to support the right of any city's Bravest, who already give far more of themselves than most, to give still more to help smaller towns stay safe.
This op-ed column appearing in the local paper here today (not posted to its website, alas) alleges that the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) is pushing federal legislation through Congress that would make it even more difficult for volunteer departments to find the one or two career smoke-eaters they need to run them and train the volunteers. A quick Google scan of firefighter message boards confirms what the column states, that the IAFF's constitution specifically prohibits paid firefighters from working on vollie fire departments, even in their off-duty hours.
Some caveats: 1) My dad and brother are both members of IAFF, and the union pays my dad a pension; 2) the union has been one of the longest-serving and staunchest supporters of my favorite charity, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, and its annual fund-raising efforts around Labor Day; 3) being a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I have a tough time seeing any labor union as "the bad guy" in a political debate; and 4) this columnist happens to work for the Heritage Foundation, a well-known right-wing think tank with a bias against unions.
But I also come from a state with "right-to-work" laws in force, and am all too aware of some of the excesses to which some unions have resorted in the name of protecting their and their members' interests. So this troubles me a bit. I will have to think about it some more before coming down on one side or the other...but my initial inclination is to support the right of any city's Bravest, who already give far more of themselves than most, to give still more to help smaller towns stay safe.
